The Org Buglist v2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I tried this out for fun and found a bug:

When ransoming back family members or having them released by the enemy, they have a high chance of getting a trait which gives them chivalry - The trait's description fits better to the one releasing the troops than the released troops however so its likely a misplaced trigger.

---

Yes something seems to be wrong here. Triggers will be below. The first 2 are for releasing or executing prisoners, the second two are similar, but applied when a ransom happens and prisoners are paid for or executed:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

;------------------------------------------
Trigger prisoners_captor1
WhenToTest GeneralPrisonersRansomedCaptor

Condition RansomType release
and NumCapturedSoldiers > 80

Affects CaptorChivalry 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger prisoners_captor2
WhenToTest GeneralPrisonersRansomedCaptor

Condition RansomType execute
and NumCapturedSoldiers > 80

Affects CaptorDread 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger prisoners_payer1
WhenToTest GeneralPrisonersRansomedCaptive

Condition RansomType ransom
and NumCapturedSoldiers > 80
and RansomAmount > 1000

Affects RansomChivalry 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger prisoners_payer2
WhenToTest GeneralPrisonersRansomedCaptive

Condition RansomType execute
and NumCapturedSoldiers > 80
and RansomAmount < 5000

Affects RansomDread 1 Chance 100

Note that the first 2 WhenToTest lines have captor on the end, while the last 2 have captive. The descriptions for the "Ransom" traits, though, look like this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

{Noble_Commander} Noble Commander

{Noble_Commander_desc}
Has shown some leniency to enemies captured on the field of battle.

{Noble_Commander_effects_desc}
+1 Chivalry

¬--------------------

{Honourable_Commander} Honourable Commander

{Honourable_Commander_desc}
Known to generally show mercy and compassion to those he has defeated in battle.

{Honourable_Commander_effects_desc}
+2 Chivalry, +1 Morale for all troops on the battlefield

¬--------------------

{Caring_Commander} Caring Commander

{Caring_Commander_desc}
So commonly does this man let his enemy prisoners go, they actually expect it.

{Caring_Commander_effects_desc}
+3 Chivalry, +2 Morale for all troops on the battlefield

¬--------------------

{Merciful_Commander} Merciful Commander

{Merciful_Commander_desc}
A truly merciful champion of chivalry who always shows the utmost courtesy to those he has bested.

{Merciful_Commander_epithet_desc} the Merciful

{Merciful_Commander_effects_desc}
+4 Chivalry, +3 Morale for all troops on the battlefield

¬--------------------

{Grim_Commander} Grim Commander

{Grim_Commander_desc}
Has passed the opportunity to pay a reasonable sum for the lives of his captured troops.

{Grim_Commander_effects_desc}
+1 Dread

¬--------------------

{Cold_Commander} Cold Commander

{Cold_Commander_desc}
Has refused to agree to ransom back his own men several times.

{Cold_Commander_effects_desc}
+2 Dread, -1 Morale for all troops on the battlefield

¬--------------------

{Harsh_Commander} Harsh Commander

{Harsh_Commander_desc}
Commonly deems that those of his men that fall to the enemy are not worth paying for again.

{Harsh_Commander_effects_desc}
+3 Dread, -2 Morale for all troops on the battlefield

¬--------------------

{Merciless_Commander} Merciless Commander

{Merciless_Commander_desc}
Coldly informs his own men that if they fall into enemy hands, that they deserve the death that awaits them.

{Merciless_Commander_epithet_desc} the Merciless

{Merciless_Commander_effects_desc}
+4 Dread, -3 Morale for all troops on the battlefield

Something is clearly screwy. The triggers suggest the following:

When a captive general is released during a ransom, he gains chivalry for it.
When a captive general is executed during a ransom, he gains dread for it.

At least I think that's what it means. It could mean that this trait set applies to a general who either pays for his captive troops or allows them to be executed rather than pay. This would make more sense (as then a dead guy isn't getting a trait for it), but it's hard to tell.

The RansomChivalry set of descriptions suggests they are for a general who releases enemy prisoners (presumably through ransom exchanges).

OTOH, the RansomDread set of descriptions suggests they are for a general who consistently refuses to PAY ransoms on his troops.

So..... wtf, mate? They can't all be right, and in fact each of them contradicts the others. I can't really make any sense of it.

Thanks for digging around the character traits for me foz, was too tired to go do that :)

I have another bug for CA though:
AI can fight night battles with captains when they are attacking and can use captain led armies to reinforce night battles when attacking.
Not something the human seems to be able to do at all.

Pope Bug:

Firstly the pope asks me to stop attacking Sicily (even though I'm at war with Sicily and they have lots of single unit captain stacks in my territory cutting my income and have started the war)
Next turn, the pope(!) tells me to blockade Palermo (Sicily) without excommunicating them. (something about making the prodigal son see the light)
Doing as the pope wishes lets you fail the do not attack mission and lowers your relations with the pope.

So whats wrong with this pope....

I'm using the French version of the game and I have the next bugs :

When one of my diplomats discusses with any other faction this one is always called England (Angleterre in French). For example when I make them a gift it answers : "England thanks you" even they are the Scottish :laugh4: or the Spanish or any other faction.

Other minor bug concerns the docks you see on the strategic map when I conquer the nordic factions the docks are in nordic style even if I upgrade the cities or the docks. In Oslo I have a combnation of both :2thumbsup: .

Other translation problem are the ressources that are correctly translated in french when I mouse over them, but in the agents' list next to merchants the ressource name is written in English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d3nn16

I'm using the French version of the game and I have the next bugs :

When one of my diplomats discusses with any other faction this one is always called England (Angleterre in French). For example when I make them a gift it answers : "England thanks you" even they are the Scottish :laugh4: or the Spanish or any other faction.

---

Yep, this also happens in the German version of the game. It's most funny when I'm playing as England - why should I thank myself? :laugh4:
There are some other translation errors as well, most notably that Missile Units are classified in battle as "Schießstände" ("archery/practice ranges") instead of "Schützen" ("shooters"), and "Acre" (the castle) being correctly translated to "Akkon", while the province itself is still called "Region Acre".

sapi, This has probably been mentioned before but, I've digged through the first post and couldn't find it:

Transgression/ Trespassing:
The AI very often sends armies into the territory of allied or neutral
factions without military access. This causes a drop in relations.
It's even worse when the AI parks an army outside of your city and your own army either get's tied up by that threat or you attack the army and have to face the result of that "aggression".
The AI (and the game) needs to be aware that moving an army into enemy territory is an act of aggression. It shouldn't occur if it does not intend to be aggressive towards that faction.

With the fix for the "lack of naval invasions" it's become worse.
Yesterday Milan parked an army at Algier for 10 turns. They only were picked up again after I'd build a diplomat and travelled to Milan to negotiate trade rights. If they hadn't been picked up I would've been forced to attack.

Guys, this really should go to the Buglist, not the Bugfixes topic.

Nothing — absolutely nothing — is as important as getting the shield bug patched, IMHO.

Not only is it serious at face value, I also strongly suspect it's either a contributing factor or even a cause in many other problems: Spear units being weak against cavalry, peasants killing good infantry, etc.

CA has acknowledged the issue and I have no reason to believe it won't be patched. However, emphasis never hurts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Guys, this really should go to the Buglist, not the Bugfixes topic.

---

Correct.

Moved.

Merchant Skill works even above 10.
I.e. having a skill 10 merchant gives x amount of florins on a resource but if he secretly has more than 10, he will produce more florins. Verified using give_trait and ending turns.

i don't know if this has been mentioned but in many battles where there is much visible "daylight" i see troops carrying torches!? also sometimes they seem to be floating in the air when they(soldiers wielding torches) have been killed.

sunrise and sunset gametypes are classified as night, hence the torches.

The floating issue is a bug though (afaik)

Dead units still have lit torches at night. Can be a big performance drain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

Nothing — absolutely nothing — is as important as getting the shield bug patched, IMHO.

Not only is it serious at face value, I also strongly suspect it's either a contributing factor or even a cause in many other problems: Spear units being weak against cavalry

---

Check.

Quote:

---

peasants killing good infantry, etc.

---

Check.

Seriously, I'm absolutely certain both of these problems stem from the shields working incorrectly. Said good infantry with big shields suffer -12 from their intended defense due to the bug (i.e. a sword and shield unit the game says is 21 defense in fact has 9). Similarly, spears are usually at -12 defense, which is why they get completely rolled by cavalry. Defense seems to be the primary factor in surviving/resisting charges. Fixed spears actually put up a decent fight. Check out my shield fix (in the sig) if you want an interim solution that puts the units back to their intended frontal melee defense (by removing shields and putting their def points into other places).

Quote:

---

CA has acknowledged the issue and I have no reason to believe it won't be patched. However, emphasis never hurts.

---

Right. The fact that CA has been in touch with Lusted and talked about game balance and the various bug fixes seems to be very promising, so here's hoping it comes through for the next patch.

Quote:

---

Right. The fact that CA has been in touch with Lusted and talked about game balance and the various bug fixes seems to be very promising, so here's hoping it comes through for the next patch.

---

I've had a few more msn convos with Pala and things are looking good for the next patch.

When the AI attacks and has reinforcements, especially when outnumbered, his reinforcements will take a defensive position on a hill after you take out his main army (and his reinforcements aren't too close to your main army).

This is quite annoying as he is supposed to attack not defend, forcing me as the defender to attack him to end the battle (i don't play with time limits)

sapi, I just read a bit through the list you sent off to CA and noticed that you sent "becoming king makes the general lose his starting piety bonus"
This is not true however. They keep it. (at least after the ReligionStarter fix to make it characters family instead of characters general)

If you haven't got it on the list yet, do send off that ReligionStarter is borked (read above what to fix)

Okay, will do sometime in the near future.

If I'm allied to two other factions which go to war I'm not forced to decide which faction I want to be allied further. In RTW and MTW I had to decide whether to support the attacker or the attacked.
I had this at least twice in my current byzantine campaign (v1.1). I tried to install shaba wangs diplomacy mod. But I'm not sure if it's working or not since I didn't got more recruitment slots as described in the readme.

Shaitan

I think this is a bug, not a feature:
When defeating a sallying army or a stack supporting a town under siege and your enemy loses his last family members in the battle, the faction is eliminated (duh) BUT the town you were sieging is still under siege and gets a full new garrison of fresh rebel troops.
IMO this shouldn't be happening as its unexplicable where those fresh troops suddenly appeared from and the town is supposed to fall to you when you win the battle instead of being taken over by rebels.
I think the fix for that in the code would be just to change the priority of the events around somewhat (capture town before faction eliminated), but I can't find it, so let CA fix it!


On a side note, I'd like to put emphasis on the highly annoying siege lag and campaign lag bugs!

@factionheir - agreed - that's as annoying as all hell

@shaitan - i've noticed the same thing and also wondered at the ommision

@shaitan - i've noticed the same thing and also wondered at the ommision[/QUOTE]

I would consider it as a bug, since we also can't propose an alliance to faction which is in war with an other faction which you are allied. So it seem intended and one should be forced to decide for one faction if they go to war.

Shaitan

The battle editor is still bugged. You can apply the changes to preferences.cfg file (it is not ticked as read only) but these changes are not permanent. Rebooting the PC means doing the same changes again and again. It's a pain

.....Orda

Free upkeep from jousting lists/tourney grounds doesn't work.

When having a gunpowder infantry on fire at will and then manually targeting them at another unit they are not currently perpendicular towards, they will form an X shaped formation with people aiming at opposite directions and refuse to fire at all until you turn off fire at will and move/stop them and retarget or set back to fire at will. I thought this was supposed to have been fixed in 1.1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Free upkeep from jousting lists/tourney grounds doesn't work.

---

I'm guessing by that you mean that you can never get any unit to be free upkeep in a castle that has one of them, in spite of it saying it gives the free upkeep bonus, right?

Actually, it's doing what the game dictates it's supposed to, from what I can tell, which makes this a design oversight rather than an actual bug. The problem is that free upkeep is designed so that only a unit that can currently be recruited in the given settlement can be free upkeep at that settlement. That wouldn't be bad in and of itself, but it is bad along with the next fact: only militia units have the attribute in the export_descr_unit.txt file that allows them to be free upkeep. So the free_upkeep bonus line in the tourney grounds in fact is working correctly... it's just that no unit in the game is both allowed to be free upkeep and is recruited from a castle, so the free upkeep slot you get at your castle can in fact never make any unit free upkeep there. Easiest fix I can think of would be to make all the castle-recruited units bear the attribute that lets them be free upkeep. Since they can't be recruited in cities, this would change nothing except allowing them to become free upkeep in any slots that castles may get, which as far as I know is only those from jousting lists/tourney grounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

sunrise and sunset gametypes are classified as night, hence the torches.

The floating issue is a bug though (afaik)

---

i could see how the code my be implemented for it being night or day and the possibility of units to wield torches, but when you look at this picture and see them holding torches you might think something is a bit out of place lol.


https://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bugds8.jpg


anyway i should take some screens of floating torches later on .

it is not much of minor bug , just more an annoyance i guess .

This may have been mentioned, but it's extremely frustrating how you can drag out a formation that a unit cannot assume. This is particularly noticeable when setting up to defend a seige assault, where it's almost impossible to (for example) place a cavalry unit almost anywhere other than the city square.

Should be a relatively simple principle: If you can map out the formation, the unit should be able to assume that formation; if the unit is prevented from taking a formation, by terrain or otherwise, the "cursors" should not represent said formation.

That was the case in RTW, so I'm not sure what happened.

I think it's a problem with the deployment engine in cities.

If you start the battle, you'll find that troops don't mind assuming that position at all.

When are you going to send off the list again sapi?

To be honest, i'll probably send my next one off after the patch is out, so i can catch all the new bugs as well as the others.

The vast majority of bugs were covered by the one sent on the 12th of Janurary, and i don't want to send small incremental updates that do naught but irritate :laugh4: